Colleague appraisal of Australian general practitioners in training: an analysis of multisource feedback data

Vayro, Caitlin, Narayanan, Ajit, Greco, Michael, Spike, Neil, Hanson, Jan, Mitchell, Ben, Hanson, Dale, and Stewart, Rebecca (2022) Colleague appraisal of Australian general practitioners in training: an analysis of multisource feedback data. BMC Medical Education, 22 (1). 494.

[img]
Preview
PDF (Published Version) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview
View at Publisher Website: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03559...
 
2
363


Abstract

Background: Multisource feedback is an evidence-based and validated tool used to provide clinicians, including those in training, feedback on their professional and interpersonal skills. Multisource feedback is mandatory for participants in the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Practice Experience Program and for some Australian General Practice Training Registrars. Given the recency of the Practice Experience Program, there are currently no benchmarks available for comparison within the program and to other comparable cohorts including doctors in the Australian General Practice Training program. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare colleague feedback within and across General Practice trainee cohorts.

Methods: Colleague feedback, from multisource feedback of Practice Experience Program participants and Australian General Practice Training Registrars, collected between January 2018 and April 2020, was compared to identify similarities and differences. Analyses entailed descriptive statistics, between and within groups rater consistency and agreement measures, principal component analysis, t-tests, analysis of variance, and psychometric network analysis.

Results: Colleague ratings of Practice Experience Program participants (overall average 88.58%) were lower than for Registrars (89.08%), although this difference was not significant. ‘Communication with patients’ was rated significantly lower for Practice Experience Program participants (2.13%) while this group was rated significantly better for their ‘Ability to say no’ (1.78%). Psychometric network analyses showed stronger linkages between items making up the behavioural component (compared to the items of the performance and self-management components, as found by principal component analysis) for Practice Experience Program participants as compared to Registrars. Practice Experience Program participants were stronger in clinical knowledge and skills as well as confidentiality, while Registrars were stronger in communicating with patients, managing their own stress, and in their management and leadership skills.

Conclusions: The multisource feedback scores of doctors undertaking the Practice Experience Program suggests that, while all mean values are ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’, there are areas for improvement. The linkages between skills suggests that Practice Experience Program doctors’ skills are somewhat isolated and have yet to fully synthesise. We now have a better understanding of how different groups of General Practitioners in training compare with respect to professional and interpersonal skills. Based on the demonstrated differences, the Practice Experience Program might benefit from the addition of educational activities to target the less developed skills.

Item ID: 76366
Item Type: Article (Research - C1)
ISSN: 1472-6920
Keywords: Communication skills, GP Registrars, GPs in Training, Multisource feedback, Professional development, Professionalism
Copyright Information: © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Date Deposited: 27 Apr 2023 04:01
FoR Codes: 39 EDUCATION > 3901 Curriculum and pedagogy > 390110 Medicine, nursing and health curriculum and pedagogy @ 100%
Downloads: Total: 363
Last 12 Months: 90
More Statistics

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page Item Control Page